Reading: A milk seller received 20 advance payments of â‚¹5 lakhs each for supplying milk to a dairy plant. However, no milk was ever delivered, and there’s no proof that even a single litre reached the plant. Despite this, the courts, including the High Court, upheld the punishment and fine. The Supreme Court also declined to hear the case. How can the seller now seek a review and curative petition, given that the judgement acknowledges the lack of proof of milk delivery but relies on the legal presumption under Section 139?

A milk seller received 20 advance payments of â‚¹5 lakhs each for supplying milk to a dairy plant. However, no milk was ever delivered, and there’s no proof that even a single litre reached the plant. Despite this, the courts, including the High Court, upheld the punishment and fine. The Supreme Court also declined to hear the case. How can the seller now seek a review and curative petition, given that the judgement acknowledges the lack of proof of milk delivery but relies on the legal presumption under Section 139?

Last updated: August 25, 2025 1:02 pm

Apni Law

9 months ago

Law Forum › Category: Civil › A milk seller received 20 advance payments of â‚¹5 lakhs each for supplying milk to a dairy plant. However, no milk was ever delivered, and there’s no proof that even a single litre reached the plant. Despite this, the courts, including the High Court, upheld the punishment and fine. The Supreme Court also declined to hear the case. How can the seller now seek a review and curative petition, given that the judgement acknowledges the lack of proof of milk delivery but relies on the legal presumption under Section 139?

Vote Up
203
Vote Down

Apni Law Staff asked 9 months ago

A milk seller received 20 advance payments of â‚¹5 lakhs each for supplying milk to a dairy plant. However, no milk was ever delivered, and there’s no proof that even a single litre reached the plant. Despite this, the courts, including the High Court, upheld the punishment and fine. The Supreme Court also declined to hear the case. How can the seller now seek a review and curative petition, given that the judgement acknowledges the lack of proof of milk delivery but relies on the legal presumption under Section 139?

1 Answers

Vote Up
14
Vote Down

Best Answer

Apni Law Staff answered 9 months ago

The milk seller can file a review petition and a curative petition to the Supreme Court, arguing that the court erred in relying on Section 139’s presumption of delivery despite concrete evidence of non-delivery. They can contend that the presumption is rebuttable and should not be applied in this case due to the overwhelming evidence against it. However, success is highly unlikely as the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case initially signifies a strong stand against reopening the matter.